VEGETATION OF THE RIVER MAROS AND ITS SURROUNDINGS (SOUTHERN HUNGARY)

VEGETATION OF THE RIVER MAROS AND ITS SURROUNDINGS (SOUTHERN HUNGARY)

Viktória Cseh, Zoltán Bátori, László Erdós, László Kormoczi

Introduction

754 km long, with a catchment area of 30,332 km2 (Somogyi 1990), river Maros plays an important role in the Great Hungarian Plain both from a nature conservation and a socio-economic perspective (cf. Andó 1995, Veress 2002, Kormoczi 2011). Therefore, knowledge on this area may be useful in conservation management and landscape planning. Formerly, we investigated the land-use history and habitat types of the Bókény area near Maros (Fodor et al.

2011). That work was done as part of a Hungarian-Romanian cross-border project (Kormoczi 2011). In this paper, we summarize the results of the research that was an extension of the former project, focusing on four representative areas of the Hungarian Maros section. Our aim was to prepare the habitat maps of the designated areas, carry out coenological surveys and supply some floristic data.

Material and methods

Our study area is situated around the Hungarian section of River Maros.

Mean annual temperature is 10.5-10.6 °C, mean annual precipitation is 550-600 mm (Ambrózy and Kozma 1990). Typical soils are alluvial protosoils and alluvial soils, to a lesser degree chernozems and alkaline soils (Rajkai 1990, Jakab 1995).

A detailed description of the geohistory, climate and hydrography of the Maros catchment region are given by Andó (1995).

Natural vegetation of the area (before intensive human impact) included riverine forests and marshes (Zólyomi 2007). A brief description of the actual vegetation of the inundation area of the Hungarian Maros section was given by Margóczi et al. (2002). Generally, forests are in a bad condition: the proportion of poplar-willow forests is low, and the area is dominated by plantations (mainly hybrid poplar plantations), where natural undergrowth is eliminated, invasive species are abundant and protected species occur only sporadically. Gaskó (1999) gave a comprehensive description of the natural values of the Maros section in Csongrád county. He listed eleven protected species from the area.

During our field works, we recorded the localities of protected plants as well as occurrences of species that are rare on the Great Hungarian Plain. Based on GPS-coordinates, maps were drawn depicting the localities. For this purpose, we used ArcView 3.2. (ESRI). Localities are given according to settlements. In

brackets, codes of the CEU-quadrates are also supplied (Király and Horváth 2000). Names of protected species are underlined.

Two semi-natural and one sown marsh-meadows were chosen for our investigations. The meadows are parts of the floodplain of the river Maros and are located near Makó and Magyarcsanád (cf. Fig. 1 at p. 5). Coenological relevés were taken in 2012 in 2 m x 2 m plots. Percentage cover of all vascular plant species was estimated in each plot. A total of 25 relevés were taken.

To characterize the differences between the main forest types occurring along the river Maros, we made 5 relevés in the riverine willow-poplar forests and in the planted oak-elm-ash forests, respectively. In 2012, percentage cover of all vascular plant species was estimated within each 20 m x 20 m plot.

We arranged the species in the tables into syntaxonomical groups according to Soó (1980) (Tables 1-2). The spectra of the groups were calculated using cover data. In the case of the forests, only the shrub and herb layers were considered.

In order to compare the diversity of the two marsh-meadow types and of the two forest types, we applied diversity ordering. We used Rényi's diversity function, since it is one of the most useful diversity ordering methods (Tóthmérész 1995). Rényi's function is given by the equation below:

The relationships among the species composition of the relevés were analysed with PCoA ordination using the program package SYN-TAX 2000 (Podani 2001).

Diagnostic species of the different vegetation types were determined by statistical fidelity measures (Tichy and Chytry 2006). The phi coefficient (O) for all species was computed with the JUICE 7.0.25 program (Tichy 2002). This coefficient ranges from -1 to 1, but for convenience, it is multiplied by 100 in the program. The highest phi value of 1 is achieved if the species occurs in all plots of the target vegetation type and is absent elsewhere. Species with positive phi- coefficients were considered significant diagnostic species. Fisher's exact test was carried out to exclude non-significant diagnostic species.

Species names are used according to Király (2009).

Results and discussion Floristic survey

Localities of protected and rare plants are shown in Colour plate Figures 1 and 2.

Aster sedifolius L. ssp. sedifolius

Klárafalva (in a backyard, used currently as a hay-meadow) [9787.4], Deszk

(in an alkaline grassland) [9787.4]. It is relatively wide-spread in the area east of River Tisza (Farkas 1999).

Circaea lutetiana L.

Kiszombor (in a poplar-willow forest) [9888.2]. It is a sporadic plant on the Great Hungarian Plain (Simon 2000, Tóth 2003, Király 2009).

Clematis integrifolia L.

Szeged (near the mouth of River Maros, abundant on the dike) [9787.3].

Relatively common along the Maros (therefore, we do not show its occurrences on the map), but it was last mentioned from this locality by Erdős J. (in Soó and Máthé 1938).

Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz

Makó [9788.4, 9888.2], Kiszombor [9888.2] (in poplar-willow forests, oak and hybrid poplar plantations). Formerly, it was mentioned from Makó by Makra (2002), but has not been reported from Kiszombor (cf. Farkas 1999).

Iris spuria L.

Magyarcsanád (on the hay meadow near Bökény) [9889.2]. Although it was mentioned from the lower section of the Maros neither by Dragulescu (1995), nor by Farkas (1999), it was reported from the same site in an unpublished report of Penksza et al. (2001).

Lamium album L.

Magyarcsanád (along River Maros, near Bökény, in a poplar-willow forest and its edge) [9889.4]. The species is rare on the Great Hungarian Plain (Simon 2000), its nearest known locality is near Makó (Makra 2002).

Marchantia polymorpha L. emend Burgeff.

Deszk (on the Maros bank, on open soil surface) [9787.4]. Although it is relatively wide-spread in the Carpathian basin (Hazslinszky 1885), it is rare on the Great Hungarian Plain, where it is mostly restricted to artificial habitats (Soó 1964, Orbán and Vajda 1983).

Ranunculus ficaria L.

Deszk [9787.3, 9787.4], Magyarcsanád [9889.4], Maroslele [9787.4], Szeged [9787.1, 9787.3] (along River Maros, in poplar-willow forests, hybrid poplar plantations and oak plantations, exceptionally on hay meadows). It occurs sporadically along the river (Soó and Máthé 1938).

Salvinia natans (L.) All.

Szeged (on the left side of the Maros, in standing water within the inundated area) [9787.3]. It was known from the right side of the river (Gaskó 1999), from Algyő (Kováts F. in Soó and Máthé 1938) and from the Szeged section of River Tisza (Zsák 1941).

Scilla vindobonensis Speta

Magyarcsanád (near River Maros, in a poplar-willow forest) [9889.4]. It is very rare in the region east of River Tisza, its nearest known locality is in the proximity of Makó (Farkas 1999).

Trapa natans L.

Szeged (on the left side of the Maros, in standing water within the inundated area) [9787.3]. The species was known from the area near Algyő (Gaskó 1999).

Viola reichenbachiana Jord.

Szeged (in a poplar-willow forest on the Maros riverbank) [9787.3], Kiszombor [9888.2] (in a former orchard). Rare on the Great Hungarian Plain (Király 2009).

Habitat survey

Unfortunately, study areas are dominated by tree plantations (mainly oak, hybrid poplar and white poplar) and agricultural fields (Colour plate Figures 3-6).

Almost all habitats are infected by invasive species, such as Acer negundo, Amorpha fruticosa, Asclepias syriaca and Robinia-pseudo-acacia. Poplar-willow forests are mostly restricted to a very narrow stripe along the river. In some cases, only a single tree line of white poplar remained along Maros. Area occupied by poplar-willow forests should be increased. As a minimum, a considerably wider stripe of these forests should be restored along the river, since they are by far more valuable than plantations. Marsh meadows, which are also valuable from a nature conservation perspective, have a high proportion in the Bökény and Makó area. In the other two study areas, semi-natural grasslands are mostly limited to the dikes. Their slopes facing towards the river are moister, with typical marsh species such as Clematis vitaiba. Their dryer slopes, facing the other direction, support grassland more similar to the degraded loess grasslands. Orchards of the study region are small, but they may be valuable both from conservation and from a cultural point of view, thus their detailed study would be necessary.

Figure 1. PCoA ordination diagram of the relevés of different meadow types along the river Maros. I: semi-natural marsh-meadows near Maroslele; II: semi-natural marsh-

meadows near Makô; III: sown marsh-meadows near Magyarcsanâd.

axis 1

0.3

-0.3 -i -0.4 J

Ecological survey

The PCoA shows remarkable differences among the relevés made in the different marsh-meadow types along the river Maros (Fig. 1).

Figure 2. Proportions of the different coenological groups in semi-natural marsh-meadows and sown marsh-meadows.

The semi-natural marsh-meadows are dominated by marsh species (Alopecurion pratensis, Molinio-Arrhenatherea, Molinio-Juncetea) and dry grassland species (Festuco-Bromea), but indifferent species also play an important role in this vegetation type. Dominant species include: Alopecurus pratensis, Car ex preacox, Elymus repens, Galium verum, Poa pratensis s. str. Frequent species are Alopecurus pratensis, Carex praecox, Cirsium arvense, Convolvulus arvensis, Elymus repens, Galium verum, Geranium pusillum, Myosotis arvensis, Poa pratensis s. str., Veronica arvensis, Vicia angustifolia and Vicia hirsuta. The proportion of marsh species is higher, but the proportion of dry grassland species is lower in the sown marsh-meadows than in the semi-natural marsh-meadows (Fig. 2). Dominant species of the sown marsh-meadows are Alopecurus pratensis,

Poa pratensis and Cirsium arvense. Frequent species include: Alopecurus pratensis, Bromus hordeaceus, Cirsium arvense, Geranium pusillum, Myosotis arvensis, Poa pratensis s. str. There are 8 diagnostic species {Carex praecox, Convolvulus arvensis, Elymus repens, Galium verum, Myosotis arvensis, Ranunculus polyanthemos, Valerianella locusta, Veronica arvensis) of the semi- natural marsh-meadows and 5 diagnostic species {Bromus hordaceus, Epilobium sp., Galium aparine, Myosotis stricta, Potentilla supina) of the sown marsh- meadows. Diversity profiles of the marsh-meadows are presented in Figure 3.

Since profiles are not intersecting, we conclude that the semi-natural marsh-

Figure 3. Diversity profiles of the semi-natural marsh-meadows (A) and sown marsh- meadows (B).

Figure 4. PCoA ordination diagram of the relevés of different forest types along the river Maros. I: riverine willow-poplar forests; II: planted oak-elm-ash forests.

The PCoA ordination scatter plot indicates a clear separation of the relevés of the different forest types (Fig. 4). Dominant species of the riverine willow-poplar forests are Acer negundo, Galium aparine, Populus alba, Ulmus laevis. Frequent species include: Acer negundo, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Galium aparine, Morus alba, Populus alba, Rubus caesius, Sambucus nigra, Ulmus laevis, Urtica dioica,

Vitis riparia.

Considering the cover data, the proportion of indifferent species is the highest in the riverine willow-poplar forests, while that of adventives is the highest in the planted oak-elm-ash forests (Fig. 5). Except Quercus robur, the planted oak-elm- ash forests are dominated by adventive species {Acer negundo, Amorpha fruticosa, Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Frequent species are Acer negundo, Amorpha fruticosa, Quercus robur, Rubus caesius and Vitis riparia. Only 2 diagnostic species can be distinguished between the forest types. Sambucus nigra is diagnostic for the riverine willow-poplar forests, while Quercus robur for the planted oak-elm-ash forests. According to the diversity profiles (Fig. 6), willow- poplar forests are more diverse than the planted oak-elm-ash forests.

Willow-poplar forests

I ,

f

/ /

^

/ / / / /

/ * ^«/

Oak-elm-ash forests

J* of*

<r

/ / / ' / / / / / / / / S *

cr <f

Figure 5. Proportions of the different coenological groups in riverine willow-poplar forests and planted oak-elm-ash forests.

Considering the results of other studies (cf. Borhidi 2003, Kevey and Tóth 2006, Kevey 2007, Bólóni et al. 2011) we can conclude that the major part of the riverine forests along the river Maros (from Szeged to Nagylak) are in poor conditions according to their species numbers, species compositions and vegetation texture. Nevertheless, some willow-poplar forest stands show an almost natural structure and also harbour a few riverine and oak forest species (e.g. Circaea lutetiana, Cucubalus baccifer, Humulus lupulus, Lamium album, Viola reichenbachiana). Marsh-meadows are in a better condition and therefore are -more important from a nature conservation point of view. Habitat management should focus on the protection and improvement of those habitats which are natural elements in the landscape.

Figure 6. Diversity profiles of the riverine willow-poplar forests (A) and planted oak-elm- ash forests (B).

References

Ambrózy, P. and Kozma, F. 1990: Marosszög. Éghajlat. - In: Marosi, S. and Somogyi, S.

(eds): Magyarország kistájainak katasztere I. MTA FKJ, Budapest, p. 211.

Andó, M. 1995: The geography of the River Maros (Mures) and its rivers system. - Tiscia Monograph Series, 1, 7-23

Bölöni, J., Molnár, Zs. and Kun, A. (eds) 2003: Magyarország élőhelyei.

Vegetációtípusok leírása és határozója. MTA Ökológiai és Botanikai Kutatóintézete, Vácrátót, Hungary.

Draglescu, C. 1995: The flora and vegetation of the Mures (Maros) valley. - Tiscia Monograph Series, 1, 47-111.

Farkas, S. (ed) 1999: Magyarország védett növényei. Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

Fodor, A., Bátori, Z., Cseh, V., Margóczi, K., Körmöczi, L. and Erdős, L. 2011:

Inundation area of the Maros near Bökény: land-use history and habitat mapping. - Tiscia Monograph Series, 9, 23-34.

Gaskó, B. 1999: Csongrád megye természetes és természetközeli élőhelyeinek védelméről III. - Studia Naturalia, 2,1-282.

Hazslinszky, F. 1885: A magyar birodalom moh-flórája. K. M. Természettudományi Társulat, Budapest, Hungary.

Jakab, S. 1995: Soils of the flood plain of the Mures (Maros) River. - Tiscia Monograph Series, 1,25-46.

Kevey, B. 2007: A baranyai Dráva-sík tölgy-köris-szil ligetei (Fraxino pannonicae- Ulmetum Soó in Aszód 1935 corr. Soó 1963). - Natura Somogyiensis, 10, 11-39.

Kevey, B. and Tóth, V. 2006: A Baranyai-Dráva-sík fehér nyárligetei (Senecioni sarracenici-Populetum albae Kevey in Borhidi et Kevey 1996). - Natura Somogyiensis, 9, 47-62.

Király, G. (ed.) 2009: Új magyar füvészkönyv. Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Jósvafó, Hungary.

Király, G. and Horváth, F. 2000: Magyarország flórájának térképezése: lehetőségek a térképezés hálórendszerének megválasztására. - Kitaibelia, 5, 357-368.

Körmöczi, L. 2011: Development of a Hungarian-Romanian ecological and socio- economical research cooperation in the southern Great Plain. - Tiscia Monograph Series, 9, 1-6.

Makra, O. 2002: A makói Csordajárás természetvédelmi szempontú botanikai értékelése.

Diplomamunka. SZTE Ökológiai Tanszék, Szeged, Hungary.

Margóczi, K., Drägulescu, C., Macalik, K. and Makra, O. 2002: Vegetation description of representative habitat complexes along the Maros (Mures) river. - Tiscia Monograph Series, 6, 45-50.

Orbán, S. and Vajda, L. 1983: Magyarország mohaflórájának kézikönyve. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

Penksza, K., Herczeg, E., Gubcsó, G., Joó, K., Barczi, A., Nemes, B. and Pintér, B. 2001:

A KMNP Mágor-pusztai és Maros-ártéri területi egységeinek állapotfelvétele.

Kutatási jelentés. SZIE KGI Tájökológiai Tanszék, Gödöllő, Hungary.

Podani, J. 2001: SYN-TAX 2000. Computer programs for data analysis in ecology and systematics. Scientia Publishing, Budapest, Hungary.

Rajkai, K. 1990: Marosszög. Talajok. - In: Marosi, S. and Somogyi, S. (eds):

Magyarország kistájainak katasztere I. MTA FKI, Budapest, pp. 212-213.

Somogyi, S. 1990: Marosszög. Vízrajz. - In: Marosi, S. and Somogyi, S. (eds):

Magyarország kistájainak katasztere I. MTA FKI, Budapest, pp. 211-212.

Soó, R. 1964: A magyar flóra és vegetáció rendszertani-növényföldrajzi kézikönyve I.

Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

Soó, R. 1980: A magyar flóra és vegetáció rendszertani-növényföldrajzi kézikönyve VI.

Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

Soó, R. and Máthé, I. 1938: A Tiszántúl flórája. Instituti Botanici Universitatis Debreceniensis, Debrecen, Hungary.

Tóth, T. 2003: Újabb adatok a Dél-Tiszántúl flórájának ismeretéhez. - A Puszta, 2003, 135-169.

Tóthmérész, B. 1995: Comparison of different methods for diversity ordering. - Journal of Vegetation Science, 6,283-290.

Tichy, L. 2002: JUICE, software for vegetation classification. - Journal of Vegetation Science, 13,451-453.

Tichy, L. and Chytry, M. 2006: Statistical determination of diagnostic species for site groups of unequal size. - Journal ofVegetation Science, 17, 809-818.

Veress, E. 2002: Implications of the interdependence of human and natural environment.

Case-study of the riverine populations of the Mures River. - Tiscia Monograph Series, 6, 257-275.

Zólyomi, B. 2007: Magyarország természetes növénytakarója. - In: Járainé Komlódi, M.

(ed): Magyarország növényvilága, harmadik kiadás. Urbis Könyvkiadó, Budapest, pp. 156-157.

Zsák, Z. 1941: Florisztikai adatok a hazai növényvilág ismeretéhez. - Botanikai Közlemények, 38, 12-33.

Table 1. Analytical table of the semi-natural marsh-meadows (1-12: Magyarcsanad; 13-20: Mako) and sown marsh-meadows (21-25:

Mako).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Nanocyperion

Potentilla supina - - - - 0 . 1

Molinio-Arrhenatherea

Clematis integrifolia - - - 1 - - - 10 - 0.5 Daucus carota - 0 . 1 2

Poa pratensis s. str. 20 10 1 20 15 10 7 25 20 15 15 20 2 3 10 1 5 10 10 2 25 10 10 15 25 Rumexcrispus - 0.1 0.1 - 1 - - 2 0.1 1 - -

Molinio-Juncetea

Carexdistans - 0.1 60 0.1 10 3 4 1 - 0.1 1 - - 1

Symphytum officinale . . . . . - 2 - - - - 1 -

Molinietalia

Iris spuria - 1 5 - - - . - - - . - - - . . .

Thalictrum lucidum - - - - - - j _ _ _ . . . . . .

Agrostion stoloniferae

Bromus hordeaceus 0.5 0.1 - - - 0.1 0.1 - - - 5 1 2 5 3

Rorippa x armoracioides - 1 - 3 1 - - - - - -

Alopecurion pratensis

Alopecurus pratensis 40 5 5 5 30 10 5 15 3 5 5 5 2 35 25 10 5 30 50 5 60 70 70 75 50

Bromus commutatús - - - - - - - o. 1 - - - - - -

Galium rubioides - 80 -

Valerianella locusta 1 0.1 0.5 2 5 2 4 - 1 1 0.5 1 1 - - - - - - - - Arrhenatheretea

Arrhenatherum elatius 25 Crepis biennis 0.5 - 2 0.5 - 2 1

Myosotis arvensis 2 5 0.5 2 1 7 5 0.1 2 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 1 2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - Veronica arvensis 1 0.1 - - 1 0.1 1 - 0.5 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 -

Festuco-Puccinellietea

Podospermum canum - - - - - 0 . 1

Festuco-Bromea

Ajuga genevensis 0.1 Arenaria serpillyfolia - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1

Carexpraecox 5 25 - 25 10 55 - 25 25 - 25 40 10 35 25 5 25 20 30 30 - Cerastium brachypetalum . 0.5 - - -

semidecandrum

Eryngium campestre - - - - - - - - - 0.5 - . . . . _

Festuca rupicola 2 - 1 2

Geranium pusillum 2 0.1 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - 2 1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Myosotis stricta - - - - 0 . 1 Ranunculus - - - - 0.5 1 - - 0.1 - 3 3 0.1 0.5 4 0.1 1 3

polyanthemos

Salvia nemorosa 20 -

Trifolium campestre 0.1 1 - - 0.1 5 3 - - 10 - - 8

Vicia angustifolia 1 5 - 1 3 0.5 0.5 1 4 5 4 1 - 1 - 1 5 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 Festucetalia valesiacae

Geranium columbinum 0 . 1 - - - - Festucion rupicolae

Astragalus cicer : - - 5 - -

Chenopodio-Scleranthea

Capsella bursa-pastoris 0.1 1 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 2 - - - - 0.1 - Lactuca serriola - 0.5 - - - 0 . 1 - - - 0.1

Lamium amplexicaule 0 . 1 1 0.1 0.1 3 1 3 - 0.1

Sonchus asper - - 0 . 1 Secalietea

Adonis aestivalis - - 2 - Lamium purpureum - - 0.5 - - 0.1 0.5 - 0 . 1

Lathyrus tuberosus - - 1 2 2 1 1 - - 5 5 - 0.1 - - - Papaver dubium - - - - 3

subsp. albiflorum

Veronica polita - 1

Vicia grandiflora 10 - 0.1 - 5 0.5 - - - 5 - - 1 5 - 0.5 - 0.1

Vicia hirsuta 2 - 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 1 2 1 1 1 2 - 1 3 3 1 0.5 - 0.1 0.1 - Querco-Fagea

Ranunculus ficaria - 0 . 1 Indifferent

Allium vineale - 0.1 0.1 - 0.5 - 1 - 0.1 - 0.1

Carduus nutans 1 1 - - - - - - - - - -

Carex hirta . 1 - - 1

Cirsium arvense - 0.1 15 5 2 2 - 2 2 - 3 6 0.5 15 2 0.1 10 3 7 0.5 15 20 20 15 20 Convolvulus arvensis 2 1 - - 2 - 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 - - 2 5 5 15 30 10 7

Erophila vertía 0.1

Euphorbia virgata 0 . 5 - 1 - - - - - Galium aparine 0.1 0.1 Galium verum 30 25 15 15 15 20 6 20 35 70 - - - - 25 50 0.5 1 - 50

Linaria vulgaris 0.1 Ornithogalum umbellatum s.l. 1 0.1 - 1 1 0.1 - - 2 1 0.1 - - - 0.1 -

Silenealba 0.1 3 0.5

Taraxacum officinale 0.1 0.1 2 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - 0.1 -

Tragopogon dubium 1 - - - 0.5 - - - - -

Verbena officinalis 1 - 0 . 5 - - Adventive

Amorpha fruticosa - - 5

Asclepias syriaca 3 - - - - -

Robinia pseudoacacia - 4

Xanthium italicum - - 0 . 1 - - Other

Achillea up. 0.1 0.5

Artemisia sp. 0.1 . . . . . . - - . - -

Centaurea sp. 0 . 1 - - - 0.1

Epilobium sp. 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 Relevés were made by Z. Bátori, V. Cseh, L. Erdős and D. Turcu§

Table 2. Analytical table of the forest types (1-5: riverine willow-poplar forests; 6-10:

planted oak-elm-ash forests).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Phragmitetea

C - - - 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - Chenopodio-Scleranthea

C - - - 0.1 Secalietea

C 0.1 0.1 - C - - - 0.1 - - - 0.1 - C 20 2 5

Arction lappae C 3 5 4 C - - - 0.1 Galio-Alliarion

C 0.1 0.1 - 15

C - 1 - Calystegion sepium

C I

C 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 - - - 0.1 0.1 - C - - - 0.1

Bidentetea tripartitae C - - - 0.1

C - - - 0.1 - - - 0.1 - C - 0.5 0.1

Querco-Fagea

C 0.1 - - - 0.1 C 0.5 0.1

C 0.1 - B 0.1 1 2 - - - 3 C - 0.1 0.1 - - - 8 -

B - - - 2 - C - 0.1

C 0.1 0.1 -

C - - - 0.1 - Salicion albae

C ' 0.1 0.5 - B - 0.5 - - - - - - C 1 - 1 -

Al 30 - 10 25 30 B - - 0.1

C 0.1 - 0.1 3 2 0.1 - B 0.1 - 0.1 - - - 1

C 2 2 0.5 1 - 1 1 0.1 0.1 Al - 35 - - 20 -

Alno-Padion

Al - - - 60 45 40 50 65 C 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Al - 35 - 25 10 - - 10 - A2 10 - 15 - - - 5 5 10 - B 0.1 - 1

C 0.1 1 0.1 - - - 1 - - . - Indifferent

B 3 20 15 0.5 -

C 1 - - - ' - C - - - - 0.1

Typha angustifolia Lactuca serriola Aristolochia clematitis Cirsium arvense Lamium purpureum Anthriscus cerefolium Arctium lappa

Chaerophyllum temulum Parietaria erecta Lamium album Solanum dulcamara Stachys palustris Lycopus europaeus Lycopus exaltatus Lysimachia nummularia Acer campestre Clematis vitalba Clinopodium vulgare Comus sanguínea Cornus sanguínea Fraxinus excelsior Geum urbanum Ranunculus ficaria Scrophularia nodosa Cucubalus baccifer Humulus lupulus Humulus lupulus Populus alba Populus alba Populus alba Rubus caesius Rubus caesius Salix alba Quercus robur Quercus robur Ulmus laevis Ulmus laevis Ulmus laevis Ulmus laevis Sambucus nigra Al liaría petiolata Chelidonium majus

Galium aparine C 30 60 60 20 - - - 2 15 -

Glechoma hederacea C - - - 4 - - - 0.5 - -

Prunella vulgaris C - 0.1 - -

Ranunculus repens C 0.1 - -

Sambucus nigra C 0.5 -

Stellaria media s. str. C 30 15 10

Taraxacum officinale C 0.1 -

Urtica dioica C 0.1 2 - 2 0.1 - - 0.1 0.5 -

Veronica hederifolia agg. C 3 1 1 Adventive

Acer negundo A2 40 10 30 - 30 5 2 10 10 30 Acer negundo B 2 20 15 - 3 - - 1 - 2 Acer negundo C - - - - - - 2 - 0.1 -

Amorpha fruticosa B - - - 2 - - - 10 40 15 Amorpha fruticosa c ^{- - - 0,1 - 0.1 - 1 - 1}

Celtis occidentalis B - - - - 2 - - - - -

Celtis occidentalis c ^{- - - 1 2 - - 0.1 - -}

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Al 5 - - - - - 25 - - -

Fraxinus pennsylvanica A2 - - 3 5 5 30 - 5 - -

Fraxinus pennsylvanica B - - 1 20 1 15 15 5 - -

Fraxinus pennsylvanica C ^{- 1 5 15 10 3 5} 40 - -

Gleditsia triacanthos c ^{- - - - - - - 0.1 - -}

Morus alba A2 - 2 - 5 3

Morus alba B - - - 2 - - 0.1 1 - -

Morus alba c ^{- - 0.1 0.1}

Parthenocissus quinquefolio c ^{0.5 0.5}

Robinia pseudoacacia A2 2 -

Robinia pseudoacacia B 0.1 0.1 0.1

Vitis riparia Al - - - 5 - - - - - -

Vitis riparia B - 3 1 0.5 1 - - 1 - -

Vitis riparia C 0.5 - 5 0.1 1 0.1 - 1 1 0.5 Other

Cardamine sp. C ^{0.1 - -}

Poa sp. C ^{- - - - - - -} 0.1 - -

Populus x euramericana Al 5 - 3 - - - 10 - - -

Prunus domestica agg. A2 - - - - - - 2 - - -

Prunus domestica agg. C - - - - - - 1 - - -

Rumex sp. C - 0.1 0.1 -

Relevés were made by Z. Bátori, V. Cseh, L. Erdős and D. Turcuj.